Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I would imagine this no Christmas act was a Puritan influenced thing. Since they were quite anti-royalist it would make sense that Cromwell allied himself with them. Cromwell is quite an interesting historical figure in this period of English history.
I feel bad for the family, but I also feel bad for the other families of murder victims. I have been questioning why so much attention has been paid to this. Obama's comment about Trayvon could be his son was thoughtless. The Left's reactionary reporting and race baiting is just disgusting. I think anyone with even a little common sense can see through this political manipulation of a tragic incident.I still think if Zimmerman did something wrong, he'd be in jail now. Obviously there is WAY more to the story than what the general public knows.
Yes but weren't many political ideologies justified by whatever religion they followed? Were they loyal to a political belief or loyal to a religious belief? Was an individual's political belief because of his religious belief? For the most part, I agree with you. Anti-religion people can't look beyond their own prejudices and see it as just a religious war and nothing else. They couldn't be more wrong. But I think we should be careful to not go the other extreme and say religion was not a cause at all.
No, I think it was more a reaction to Charles I and his son James II who were Catholic, pro-French, and a huge proponents of the divine right of kings….or in their mind, above the law.
There is distinction between religion and politics, but I still think it's wrong to say religion wasn't a cause or reason. (I know, I did a Romney flop since my last post a few weeks ago). Religion and politics were so intertwined…again, nothing wrong with that, it's just the way it was. I don't know if this is the right way to think about it, but I look at the differing religious sects as just being different political parties more or less. Like in Northern Ireland. The Troubles were between Nationalists and Unionists. It just so happens that, for the most part, Catholics were the Nationalists and the Protestants were the Unionists. And in the English wars, they weren't trying to prevent Catholics from gaining the Crown so much as they were trying to stop France from influencing English affairs.
Among other issues, the civil war was about the divine right of kings and conflicts between the Anglicans, Catholics and Puritans or other Protestant dissenters. And from the civil war to the Revolution there were Acts of religious tolerance presented by Parliament or the monarchy.This doesn't mean religion was "bad," it's just the way it was. If viewed objectively, it was more about political power, alliances (foreign and domestic), and liberty...but to say religion had nothing to do with it would be an error. However, if someone is going to blame religion for the civil war, I hope they also praise religion for the English Revolution.
Most of the examples used in Ulster (pre-William III) were implimented in the early Jamestown colony. Both colonies were disasters at first and English attempts at government and order failed. They tried miltary-style government and it didn't work in Ulster so they knew it wouldn't work in the Chesapeake colonies. They were both successful after the British instituted their form of governance and society. Ulster was still under a feudal system and the English established shires and parishes and local governments made up of either British or Irish lordships. The British had a strict but not too followed policy of English-only language as well as culture. Even though the natives refused to give up their culture, they still adapted to a British “way” and the British became more tolerant of their culture and religion. In the Chesapeake colonies, there really weren't any communities at first and British sources described it as disorderly. But since most of the earlier settlers were English it was easier and more familiar for them to follow British law and culture once that was instituted.
Incidentally, I heard that there was debate whether or not the Industrial Revolution ever ended.
This is what kind of made me ask the question. If we're still using things (like cars) that defined the beginning of the Industrial Revoution, then did it really end? The whole Industrial Revolution I'm good with, but isn't there a 1st and 2nd Revolution? If so, what separated it from each other?I don't think I read that entry on scout's blog. I'll have to check it out and see how it compares to this.
What do I win?
Would need more detail. ;DAs for Nelson, didn't he make 2 lines to intersect the French line? I don't think he would have been able to defeat them using just one line because they would have been picked off one by one.Before Nelson, the ships crossing the T (the top line) would easily defeat the vertical line because:1) The vertical line has only one ship that can fire2) The top line, being in this position, would be able to use all cannons to shoot each ship.
